24 January 2011 12:38 PM

General musings

Being profoundly bored by scandal, which is the main feature of the news today, I thought I would write about small matters. I was dragged from sleep at 4.30 on Sunday morning when the TV set in my hotel room suddenly switched itself on. I have no idea why it did this. It had been on when I came into the room (this is often the case these days) and I had immediately switched it off. But this plainly wasn't enough.

Rosamund Pike as Helen in 'An Education'

I fumbled my way across the room and pulled out every plug I could find. The experience increased my feeling that we really are not in control of anything much - like those slightly sinister times when advanced computers start correcting your typing before you have time to do so, or the horrible moment when your phone switches to predictive text (mine does this without my asking it to) and tries to tell you what you want to say.

The actual phone has been known to switch itself on after I have quite definitely switched it off (once doing so in the middle of a Remembrance day service I happened to be attending). Not to mention the fact that the simple, hard-wearing phone I really liked, which did the few things I wanted and nothing else, is now no longer manufactured.

Nor is its charger, which always worked, and which has been replaced by a new model which often mysteriously stops charging if a hamster sneezes in the vicinity, so causing a tiny tremor which shakes the jack loose.

This is one of the many reasons for my doubts about the idea that 'market forces', left to themselves, will make us all free and happy. In fact, 'market forces' often seem to me to be rather like East Germany with a good PR company and more efficient distribution. East German cities used to have uniform high streets in which the same basic goods were available everywhere, or not available, in more or less identical shops. So do we, except that we have an illusion of variety. And before anyone goes on about fresh fruit and vegetables, I have been virtually unable to find a fresh Cox's Orange Pippin apple this season (a pulpy, smooth-skinned impostor which tastes as if it has been in a chiller for ten years and goes soft in a day, is offered under this name, but it is not a proper rough-skinned Cox) and only a very few decent Russets. Foreign varieties, often from the far side of the world, are sold here even during the English apple season.

You will have this. That razor that worked has been improved, and replaced by another one that is far more expensive and actually not as good. The marmalade that you like has been wiped off the stock list of all the (supposedly competitive) supermarket chains, and can now only be obtained by mail order via the United States, though it is made in Manchester.

Now I gather that Pears Soap has been utterly transformed, though it is still sold as if it were the same thing as before. Despite having a large nose, I have failed to notice that it smells quite different. What I have noticed is that it now comes sealed in an unnecessary plastic bag, and is a cloudy, almost milky brown instead of the old dark but translucent colour. And, though this is hard to measure, I don't think it lasts as long as it used to.

Nobody asked me about this. The free market couldn't give a curse about what I think or want but instead spends billions on trying to make me want what it makes. If I stop buying it, will anyone care? Keith Waterhouse used to expostulate, when told that there was 'no call' for some product that he wanted but which had been discontinued 'well, I am calling for it'. And, when some call centre claims that 'nobody's complained about this before', my brother always retorts 'Well, you won’t be able to say that the next time, will you?' Such ripostes make us all feel good, but do they change anything?

I was in a hotel on Sunday night because I was appearing on the Andrew Marr show, to do the newspaper review. There is a story behind this, which I can now tell. A few weeks ago, as some of you noticed, the author Ken Follett appeared on the same programme, also reviewing the papers.

He chose to give an inaccurate account of an article I had written in my MoS column, about Keith Richards. And on the basis of this misrepresentation he continued, unchallenged, about what a generally stupid person I was. Now, if I had written what he'd said I had written, I would indeed have been stupid. But I didn't. Since Mr Follett had the offending article in his hand when he said what he said, viewers would have been entitled to assume he was quoting me correctly. Those who read my column would know he was incorrect. But what about the others?

And when I protested, the BBC offered me the chance to go on the programme to put the matter right. This is another step forward, and another sign that the Corporation is trying harder to be fair.

There was an unexpected bonus out of this. We were invited to breakfast afterwards (nothing specially grand) but I found myself sitting opposite Rosamund Pike, an actress I have long admired - especially for her superlative performance in the film 'An Education' - and who I think will get better and better as the years go by, so that I will be able to boast that I once met her.

And then I had to spend much of Monday morning (beginning before dawn) going through the final stage of the long procedure now needed to renew a US Visa. Now, I have no complaints at all about this in itself. I think all countries should be very careful who they let in. And my August 1969 arrest for being in possession of an offensive weapon (four plastic lavatory ballcocks, since you ask, and no, I didn't do anything with them and it's a long, not specially exciting story whose high point involves me trying to eat a fried egg with a spoon in Cannon Row police station) quite reasonably alarms US law-enforcement bodies. As I get closer and closer to qualifying for a senior citizen's railpass, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep a straight face while trying to explain this moment to youthful consular officials. They look at me narrowly, as if I were trying to wind them up.

I just wish that Britain made it as tough for foreign passport-holders to get in here as the US does there. And that the US would do something about the vast illegal immigration (followed by amnesties) which it tolerates from Latin America. I don't at all mind filling in all those forms or even giving the USA my fingerprints, provided everyone else has to do the same.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm 65 now. My father left my mother and my elder brother when I was 1 year old. I never had any contact after that even though for most of my childhood he lived in the same city. When I started secondary school in 1958 I was one of four children from a 'broken home' in a class of 47. It's affected the whole of my life in so many ways and I know it's the same for others with similar experience. It affects far more children these days and how I bridle when I hear these idiots say that coming from a one parent family makes no difference to the child. It hurts for your entire life. Add this to the drugs problem - unknown when I was a child - and is it any wonder there are so many problems in our society today?

Your article was most appreciated Peter. There was a few lines in particular that caught my attention;
"Post-communist Russia is not the beautiful, rich and civilised land it could be and ought to be, but a crime family posing as a nation. For many people there, the choice between the old regime and the new one is not an easy one."

This is also applicable to America today. I hope you do some deeper research and examination of just what America has turned into. It's NOT the Land Of The Free nor Home of the brave, with neither Life, Liberty nor the Pursuit of Happines For All.
Living as an Enemy of the CORRUPT US THUG State, you'd understand this. America is nothing to follow, as it has been overthrown by Crime Families.

“What is the rule? Is it as I have just described - ie land belongs to the first genetic types who live there? Or is it that if a brown or black person touches a continent with one foot the entire continent belongs to their genetic type forever, whereas if a white person touches it, the land belongs to all races? “
All this talk about land belonging to people seems to leave out at least one hardly unimportant thing: that any such ownership can be under no more durable a tenure than a leasehold. When we have only a leasehold tenure on our very bodies, how much less permanent must our supposed ownership of land be!
My wise old granddad, a native of the Lancashire town of Rochdale, used to say that he “belonged Rochdale”. He was far too sensible and realistic a man to entertain grandiose ideas of the town belonging to him or his kin. The national honour surely for any citizen of any country is precisely that of being counted among that country’s citizenry. Conquerors come, of course, and conquerors likewise go but the disputed land goes on unconcerned with their childish pretensions.

Brian Meredith 26 Jan 2:06 says: "Regarding the supposed moral authority in these matters, as I have written before it all depends on how far back you want to look. I'm willing to bet that there are some disgruntled Mayan groups who dream of a day when they drive the Spanish invaders from their land. Meanwhile, the rest of the world gets on with its daily life."

What if we found some ancient archaeological evidence in a S. American country which showed that white people lived there before the brown people? Would the land then belong to whites and the brown people would have to leave? And then if we went further back and found brown people predated the whites, would it belong once again to brown people and they could come back? And so on. What is the rule? Is it as I have just described - ie land belongs to the first genetic types who live there? Or is it that if a brown or black person touches a continent with one foot the entire continent belongs to their genetic type forever, whereas if a white person touches it, the land belongs to all races?

As mikebarnes said 26 Jan 2:23 below: "All land is owned by whoever decides to live there ,and hold it with force, against others wishing to live there. Todays Morality or lack of it means those hard won battles and blood spilt winning and defending it means nothing,"

I would just add that if the people living in this country have no will to defend it or preserve what we have, and demonstrate this by electing politicians who make it quite clear that they do not want to defend it and have no loyalty to it, they are easy prey for those who will gladly take it from them. In a full representative democracy we cannot just blame the politicians, as they are not doing this secretly and we can all see clearly what is happening. The blame lies with the people for voting for them. We all know people who moan about too much immigration, yet at every election vote for pro-immigration MPs. As with crime, the people vote for MPs with the opposite views to their own.

Paul Noonan - yes, you said all that "there's no choice" etct etc stuff last time.
You didn't need to repeat it all again.

"But we're not really free, as demonstrated by the fact that supplies of old products (as Mr hitchens rightly says) are phased out, under the excuse that "there's no demand") when, in fact, it's because the market wants us to buy its next product. Just like cars created with built-in faults, or phones with built-in obscolesence. It is an illusion of freedom, just like it's an illusion of choice."

More 'clever sounding but actually nonsense' drivel.

'Old products' are usually phased out as better ones replace them, or are you still carrying around one of those brick shaped mobile phones, and playing blip blip tennis on one of those fab Ataris?

"The market wants us to by its next product"

The 'market' ? ? - is this some faceless inhuman alien creature forcing us to do its bidding like some mind control creature from Doctor Who?

The 'market' - oh yes that would be 'other people' would it? - who work in companies creating products that other people might like to buy? So that's your next door neighbour, Pete, who works at Vauxhalls - and would quite like it if you bought a car from his company, so that his company would make some money and be able to pay Peter some wages - is that 'the market' you're talking about?

Market = other people trying to make a living.

Then the rest of it - errh - yep - I get it - you like to moan about modern products and lack of choice etc etc - polical parties - yep yep - geddit - I think there were about 10 different parties standing at the last election - but feel free to start your own if you think there's a massive whole for a new one. (oh - there's that word again "free").

And I personally prefer the 2007 model of car I have now with all its various functions and safety features to the VW beatle and Datsun my dad had when I was young. But I think you can still pick up an old Datsun if that's your preference.

Oh - and then the last paragraph - our artists need the rest of us to subsidise them via taxation - before they get famous and make their millions.

Is there any end to the things these socialist want the rest of us to contribute to?
How frustrating the free market must be to them. Everyone having the choice to vote with their feet as to what they want - instead of having some bossy socialist type telling them what's good for them and forcing them to do what THEY want.
How annoying indeed.

Keep howling in the wind Mr Noonan.

(Tut - don't you just want to tell these bossy, superior, intering, socialist types to go take a running jump sometimes?)

Well Mr Charles, at least you acknowledge that border control would be to our benefit. You may have nevetheless come to the moral conclusion that we must let people in from poorer countries and that is a fair moral stance to take. But at least you implicitly admit that so doing would be a sacrifice on our part and that the beneficies would be people from poorer countres coming here. Much of the left has kept arguing that we benefit from immigration.

The world is not a perfect place. And solutions are not always easy. I just can't help thinking that with a finite amount of land surface for us humans to live on, it would be better if the good countries were big and the bad ones small. So I'm glad the United States took those lands from Mexico. It's a pity it didn't go further south still. Then the people currently in northern Mexico would not have to try to get into the US, they' be there already. Were Califiornia etc part of Mexico , then no doubt people there would be trying to leave over the nearest border to the US.

"And to my critics on the border issue, I ask them only to perform a thought experiment. If you lived in the Third World with little prospect of improving your lot in life, how would you regard the borders that the West tries to erect around itself? As something sancrosanct and not to be violated?
Or as a means whereby privileged people seek to retain their privileges? None of us chose where we were born. It's a lottery. And grossly unfair on the vast majority who have failed to get a winning ticket."
-Christopher Charles

Now we get to the bottom of it.
Your compassion is admirable but misguided. The answer to inequality is not to let everyone from the less prosperous nations enter the more prosperous nations. If there are things that the more prosperous nations are doing that prevent the less prosperous ones from catching up, then that needs to be changed, (just like things within the US that is creating more inequality needs to change) but it is not possible for everyone to live in the same place.

Mike Everett.
But we're not really free, as demonstrated by the fact that supplies of old products (as Mr hitchens rightly says) are phased out, under the excuse that "there's no demand") when, in fact, it's because the market wants us to buy its next product. Just like cars created with built-in faults, or phones with built-in obscolesence. It is an illusion of freedom, just like it's an illusion of choice. Most of the people who buy "the latest" car, the latest pop song, or the latest film, genuinely think they are buying something new. They don't realise all the comapnies have done is take the most successful film formulas, the most successful melodies and re-make them, again and again, with a different singer, like political Parties constantly give us the same old policies, with different faces. PR is doing the same to politics, that it has done to culture, art and products meant to serve human needs.You think the people really had a free choice at the Election between opposing policies? No, they had an "illusion of variety", and now Mr cameron is Prime Minister, the policies remain the same; we're still going deeper into the EU, stil flodded with immigration, still have a dreadful education system, still persecuting Christians etc etc.
There is no real choice, but we think there is, hence Mr Hitchens brilliant comment "its like East Germany with a better PR team". That's why music and film is so formulaic and similar nowadays. It has all become standardised, mass-marketed to big segments, so it ignores individual preferences, and is no longer artistic or creative (TS Elliott said the creation of art ought to be "disinterested and autonomous"), and hence it's no longer "new".

The solution is the public subsidy of art, music, literature and theatre, to free it from the shackles of the mass market;a return to localism, small businesses, not mass corporations, , the needs of invididuals, not giant, remote corporations, products based on genuine need, not mass industries trying to generate endless meaningless mass consumption, and an understanding that "new" is often not best" and that society cannot function with only markets as its guiding principle, we need Christianity to liberate us from slavery to desire.

Christopher Charles writes.........Kevin in Casablanca is close to the answer. Clearly the credit explosion is what lies behind the current crisis. But people/businesses still need to borrow money to invest, surely? How do we get round that one?..............
You are seeing problems that do not exist in the real world, only in the mind. What is this need to borrow money? There is no need. Borrowing money is to satisfy greed and covertness, nothing more. If you don’t have it now then you don’t need it.
It is like going shopping with my wife. We go down town and she usually sees something she “needs”. In home an hour before she did not “need” it because she never knew it existed. But when she sees something she likes then suddenly she “needs” it. This “need” only exists in the mind.
When people think they “need” something and don’t have the money for it then to satisfy this “need” they borrow money for it. This does not satisfy any “need”, it only satisfies a want. Confusing want and need is a big problem for most people. My father needed a car, but spent years saving his money until he could afford to buy one outright. He survived the years of “need” so obviously it was not a need at all, solely a want. That is how the free market works. Borrowing money is how capitalism works. The Buddhists say, all problems start with I want, and they are right. If a person does not want anything there is no problem.

CC.......And you don't need the Bible or Nostradamus to see that this civilisation is on the way out............
But from studying the bible you can work out the order of events and work out the most dangerous places to live while these events are happening. The whole of Europe will be a very dangerous place to live, that’s for sure.

CC.......Certainly not the end of the world[!]............
Agree, but it will certainly be the end of civilization as we know it.

CC........A new one will arise and be different in ways we can't yet even dream about...........
I have no need to dream, the bible tells me exactly what the “new world” will be like.

CC.......Sadly [fortunately?] none of us will be around to witness this........
I certainly hope I will be and by studying the forthcoming events I hope to be in a place of relative safety.

CC......None of us chose where we were born. It's a lottery. And grossly unfair on the vast majority who have failed to get a winning ticket.........
Everybody is born in the best place for their needs as God chooses who is born where. There is nothing unfair about being born. Abortion is totally unfair. Life is what a person makes of it, wherever they may be. With God everything is possible everywhere. Without God nothing is possible anywhere.

Good rebuttal to the arguments of Mr. Charles. I'd be interested to see Mr. Charles's answer to your two-line post at 10:46am. I usually find that socialists want to be very generous indeed - provided that it's with other people's money.

"And to my critics on the border issue, I ask them only to perform a thought experiment. If you lived in the Third World with little prospect of improving your lot in life, how would you regard the borders that the West tries to erect around itself? As something sancrosanct and not to be violated?
Or as a means whereby privileged people seek to retain their privileges? None of us chose where we were born. It's a lottery. And grossly unfair on the vast majority who have failed to get a winning ticket."

Complete bunkum.

So, by the same logic, someone who is born in a coucil estate flat, may look over at someone who has been born in a mansion and decide he has the right to go and live in the mansion does he?

If the people of one country work hard (industrial revolution) and create wonderful inventions, and seek through civic pride and a moral outlook (protestant work ethic?) to improve their society for themselves and their offspring, and the future decendants - does that mean that they must hand that inheritance to people of other lands who may not have worked hard to do the same themselves?

"You have something nice there. I do not and thereofre I shall take yours from you"

Mr Charles is advocating the theft of other peoples' property.

The poor person, whether it be someone starting with nothing in this country, or someone in a 3rd world country, must work hard to improve their own situation.
Our wealth was produced by the efforts of all of our ancestors - angles, saxons, normans, tudors, stuarts, victorians - why should we have to hand this wealth to others.
Those in countries that do not have our wealth must start their own process of advancement and growth - not try to steal ours.

Mr Charles is basically saying he does not agree with inherited wealth. (and that inherited wealth can include the infrastructure of roads, sewage systems, legal and governance systems that your ancestors have bequeathed to you.

In fact why bother working for anything if someone who has nothing (through the lottery of birth) can just hop onto your land and take what you have?

Perhaps it's Mr charles who needs to perform a little thought experiment of his own. Perhaps he could do it tonight, just as he locks his doors in order to keep out anyone who might wish to better their situation by entering his house and helping themselves to his property?

Mikebarnes writes......HI Kevin, Nice to hear you taking a bit of earthly sense,............
Hi Mike. It is written, be of this world but not of this world, so I can comment on both earthly and spiritual matters. To me the two are usually interchangeable. By thy way, I shall be “in the tent” in the next couple of weeks so perhaps your estimation of my posts will increase further.

Mb......(quoting me) when they see the government giving foriengers and the unemployable everthing for free".(end quote). But surely thats against the teachings you so wish, to teach us.........
Not at all. The bible says if a man does not work then he does not eat. It also say we should help the poor. It says nothing about governments stealing from the masses to spend on political agendas.

Mb......Surely Christianity teaches to loves these wretches. To offer the thief your cloak, as well as the coat stolen.To be good Samaritans.......
Exactly right. We have the God given option of being good Samaritans. The government gives us no such freedom of choice. God offers freedom, governments only offer tyranny.

Mb......Accordingly this government is just following the commands of Christ...........
Every single law in the bible, without exception, has been totally over rules or eliminated completely by this and previous governments. Not one bible law can be enforced in a court of UK “law”. God forsaw all this coming and wrote about WW3 because of ignoring His laws.

Mb......I prefer to think our goverance is as far removed from good works as is possible...........
Then you are thinking exactly right.

Mb.......Thats what you Kevin would call judgement day. The rest do not call it anything as they have their heads in the sand, fingers crossed........
Exactly right again. Romans 14v11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
And that includes all the atheists. I would also suggest that many so called Christians are in for a shock as well. All Christians are endowed with the Holy Ghost. This a power given to them, an extra human talent, which as you saw with my JW debate, a talent that most refuse to use. They bury that talent in the ground and do nothing. Jesus gave a parable about servants with 10 talents, 5 talents and 1 talent. The servant that buried his 1 talent did not come out well. I attempt to use my God given talent and am ridiculed for it. Luke 9v49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. v50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
As Jesus is for me I will put up with the scoffers, both atheists and “Christians.” The JW’s forbid themselves, so we know where those 1 talent servants are going.

"In short, more choice has meant we've chosen what we like as a population so the shops have stocked it and stopped stocking everything else."

I'm not sure I agree entirely. Supermarkets choose apples, for instance, that are cheap and will last for a long time so they don't go off on the shelves, the fact that they don't taste like apples is neither here nor there. As well as that, the modern housewife is, for the most part terminally stupid and can't cook, so she buys 'convenience' foods and pops them in the microwave, they cost far more than they would if she'd bought and cooked the ingredients and they're overflowing with sugar to hide the fact that they're tasteless pap. For snacks she gets crisps or chips; these will be frozen chips or, even worse, oven chips doesn't anyone know how incomparable the taste of real chips is compared to this muck? Just as well perhaps, she'd probably burn the house down if let loose with a real deep fat fryer.

There they all are, shuffling their obese bodies through the checkouts showing far more tatooed skin than anyone wants to see, dragging their equally obese, acne ridden offspring behind them. If they are accompanied by one of their 'partners', it's odds on he will have a shaven head, be just as fat but with a few more tatoos than she has.

Gosh, more and more unnecessary consumption until we burst; debt piled upon debt; trillions of credit created from nothing; a growing population of sick dependent on drugs; those children permitted life kept in an ignorant state; controls on freedom at every turn and political correctness checking any regression into individualism. Welcome to the future.

What a charming yet profound post – and many responders too are querying whether the "free" market might be a teeny little bit tyrannical?

At least one of the comments refers to "The Hidden Persuaders" by Vance Packard, which in 1957 identified eight "compelling needs" that advertisers promise products will fulfill. The book also explores the manipulative techniques of promoting politicians to the electorate. So it is not just stuff in shops that is heavily subject to PR (Public Relations), a technique developed after the First World War.

In 1960, Vance Packard published "The Waste Makers", an exposé of "the systematic attempt of business to make us wasteful, debt-ridden, permanently discontented individuals."

Packard divided Planned Obsolescence into two sub categories: obsolescence of desirability and obsolescence of function. The first referred to marketers' attempts to wear out a product in the owner's mind. Packard quoted industrial designer George Nelson, who wrote: "Design... is an attempt to make a contribution through change. When no contribution is made or can be made, the only process available for giving the illusion of change is 'styling!'"

Functional obsolescence is when your new boiler or fridge or whatever goes wrong around the date the guarantee expires, and can’t be repaired by just replacing a small part yourself – even computers used to be repairable at home, not now.

It is quite simple to avoid being conned like this and reduce waste at the same time - buy vintage or second-hand products wherever possible. Young people already find it "chic" to do this, for clothes and furniture and even for bikes, cookers, etc. Never mind about the GDP - other countries will buy anything we are still making (not much).

As for modern popular culture, I think Teodor Adorno had a point, but was over-fearful about the ability of humans to resist being herded like sheep. He perhaps did not live to see the Punks, the Goths, and whatever the next shock to the system is that our teenagers have lined up for us! (A return to genuine, unmarketed folk music I suspect, together with non-copyright classical and popular stuff.)

Some of the most highly popular things are also high quality, they just aren't advertised and sometimes people forget they are there (e.g. marmalade?). Anything that remains highly popular for two decades or more despite not being promoted has got to be of considerable intrinsic value whether it is Mozart or Alice Cooper, Dickens or a Beano comic, a Ming vase or a good basic razor. The mass love affair with junk food and junk culture has lasted decades thanks to the Hidden Persuaders, not thanks to any inherent value. But otherwise, popular taste needs no educating – it unerringly goes for the clearly beautiful – taking music as an example, that could be a hymn tune or the Sound of Music or something more highbrow like Handel, massively popular in his own time and even more popular (if that were possible) today.

"Why do so many people enjoy 'bitching' about the free market? It's weird.
It's like bitching about 'freedom'. Must be something in their own character.
Chips on shoulders, or something, about their own situation.".

I've got nothing against the free market except that, today, it is no longer free. It's run by a cartel of big companies who, with the collusion of various governments, control everything. Their sole purpose in life is now to increase profits dramatically year after year for the benefit of their shareholders who are, for the most part, other large corporations and, of course, the government gets its cut.

So if a product is too expensive to produce and fails to realise what they consider to be sufficient profit, then they cheapen it and make it inferior to what it was or they drop it due to 'lack of demand'. If the sales of a product are flagging then they revamp it as 'new and improved' or '20% extra' when it's much the same as it was before but costs more. At the same time they pour millions into the advertising industry to persuade us that it's something we can't do without thus eating into their profits and the whole sorry business starts all over again. The other option is to take over the competition and close them down so there's nowhere else to go.

I see Kraft got a mention earlier, it was obvious, to me anyway, that, having taken over Cadbury's they were going to shut a large part of it down despite their assurances to the contrary. This is a company that made its fortune from processed cheese, how on earth did they persuade anyone that this tasteless goo was better than real cheese? They have talent for sure, the talent to persuade a great number of people to eat overpriced muck.

In reply to Bryan.
I guess this is Rosemund Pike . That Hitchens has the hots for . Nor can I blame him. A maiden fair and with talent ,according to the host.
I would say a fair aryan maiden. but that of course is politically incorrect, but never the less true. Hitchens says he might in the future, boast that he met her once .
This from a guy that detests this celebrity culture. Still she looks the exception that proves the rule.

Christopher Charles,
Since I don't think anyone named Linda responded to you I assume that your response was actually directed at me.

The Mexicans may feel resentful that California, New Mexico and parts of Texas was taken from them, just like the descendants of the Aztecs and Mayans have every right to feel resentful about the brutality that was inflicted on them by the Spanish.
But the point is that even if California, etc was never taken from Mexico, the Mexicans would still be immigrating to the United States in search of a better standard of living and a better quality of life. It is obvious that they are not coming here to reclaim lost land because:
1) They are not coming to stake out a plot of land to grow beans and corn or raise cows or chickens on.
2) If that is why they are coming then why did they not start coming (to any significant extent) for 100 years after losing those areas -------The reason is because the standard of living was significantly different after about 100 years and they started coming in search of a better quality of life. Nothing wrong with that, but that is the truth.
3) If that is why they are coming then why are they immigrating to Washington state, Chicago, New York and even North Carolina.

The idea that they are coming to reclaim lost land or that they automatically have a right to be here because the land was once part of Mexico is just an excuse to justify illegal immigration. The fact of the matter is that it is a different country now and they are coming to participate and contribute to an economy created by a different country. If Pakistanis and Indians or Africans have to follow the rules to enter then the Mexicans should have to as well.

And there need to be rules and order because while it may be true that borders are just man-made lines on a map there are different laws, different political and economic systems within those lines.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.